Phosphorous in Gaza?

[Cruelbreed]

I do agree that white phoshorous should definetly not be used around civilian areas. The only thing that boggles my mind is how can we be placing "rules" on weapons in war. I find it odd how something as barbaric as war can be given rules as if it's some kind of video or board game, barring use of certain things. It just kind of reminds me of the type of war in the revolutionary war where armies stood directly in each others line of fire. What kind of rules make sense in war?

http://www.iht.com/articles/2009/01/22/mideast/weapon.php

[ghost]

I do agree that white phoshorous should definetly not be used around civilian areas. The only thing that boggles my mind is how can we be placing "rules" on weapons in war. I find it odd how something as barbaric as war can be given rules as if it's some kind of video or board game, barring use of certain things. It just kind of reminds me of the type of war in the revolutionary war where armies stood directly in each others line of fire. What kind of rules make sense in war?

http://www.iht.com/articles/2009/01/22/mideast/weapon.php


While, I am simply a civilian with an outsider's view, this is how I see it -

War is not pretty, at all. Tavarez, I agree with your opinion, and WP should not be used in civilian areas, whenever possible. With that said, I am aware that the US Marines used WP in Fallujah. As far as why, or if there were any better alternatives, I don't know. There are statements saying that WP was used against civilians, intentionally, but I wasn't there, so I can't really confirm or deny that. But, it's war. That's really all there is to it, as far as I see it. Shit happens, and people are going to die. That's the bottom line. There's also the issue of whether WP should be allowed to be used against personnel, or not. I think this is mainly, a morality thing. Human Rights groups say that it's inhumane. But it's no less humane that using napalm, thermobaric rockets, 500lb JDAMs, or even a rifle. In the end, you're still killing. That's it. Now, some people might look at what I just said, and say, "well if that's the case, then you may as well allow WMDs(nukes/bio/chem)." But, the way I see it, WMDs aren't even that practical. The civilian death toll would be insanely high. And with the innovation of precision guided munitions, there really is no need. They are basically "political weapons". The only practical use of a nuclear warhead, that I can really think of(and still keep the civilian death toll to a minimum), would be if it was used against a large naval carrier group, and you wanted to get rid of it, quickly. But even then, there would probably be alot of political fallout(no pun intended).

What kinds of rules make sense in war? I think a better question would be, "are there any rules?". And the answer to that is, yes. But, no one follows all of them. In the eyes of the politicians, these rules are perfect, and completely rational, because they are the ones who have to deal with the general public. But the reality is much different. Rules in war are practically meant to be broken, they always are. There is no "set way" to fight a war, particularly when your adversary is one who will use these "rules" against you(i.e. - insurgents). So, to counter this, you have to bend those rules. Because you have to fight back.

But hey, I'm just a civvie on the internet.... I could be wrong.

[napalmdeath1.0]

While, I am simply a civilian with an outsider's view, this is how I see it -

War is not pretty, at all. Tavarez, I agree with your opinion, and WP should not be used in civilian areas, whenever possible. With that said, I am aware that the US Marines used WP in Fallujah. As far as why, or if there were any better alternatives, I don't know. There are statements saying that WP was used against civilians, intentionally, but I wasn't there, so I can't really confirm or deny that. But, it's war. That's really all there is to it, as far as I see it. Shit happens, and people are going to die. That's the bottom line. There's also the issue of whether WP should be allowed to be used against personnel, or not. I think this is mainly, a morality thing. Human Rights groups say that it's inhumane. But it's no less humane that using napalm, thermobaric rockets, 500lb JDAMs, or even a rifle. In the end, you're still killing. That's it. Now, some people might look at what I just said, and say, "well if that's the case, then you may as well allow WMDs(nukes/bio/chem)." But, the way I see it, WMDs aren't even that practical. The civilian death toll would be insanely high. And with the innovation of precision guided munitions, there really is no need. They are basically "political weapons". The only practical use of a nuclear warhead, that I can really think of(and still keep the civilian death toll to a minimum), would be if it was used against a large naval carrier group, and you wanted to get rid of it, quickly. But even then, there would probably be alot of political fallout(no pun intended).

What kinds of rules make sense in war? I think a better question would be, "are there any rules?". And the answer to that is, yes. But, no one follows all of them. In the eyes of the politicians, these rules are perfect, and completely rational, because they are the ones who have to deal with the general public. But the reality is much different. Rules in war are practically meant to be broken, they always are. There is no "set way" to fight a war, particularly when your adversary is one who will use these "rules" against you(i.e. - insurgents). So, to counter this, you have to bend those rules. Because you have to fight back.

But hey, I'm just a civvie on the internet.... I could be wrong.

well said !!

[ghost]

well said !!

thank you!:D

[Cruelbreed]

While, I am simply a civilian with an outsider's view, this is how I see it -

War is not pretty, at all. Tavarez, I agree with your opinion, and WP should not be used in civilian areas, whenever possible. With that said, I am aware that the US Marines used WP in Fallujah. As far as why, or if there were any better alternatives, I don't know. There are statements saying that WP was used against civilians, intentionally, but I wasn't there, so I can't really confirm or deny that. But, it's war. That's really all there is to it, as far as I see it. Shit happens, and people are going to die. That's the bottom line. There's also the issue of whether WP should be allowed to be used against personnel, or not. I think this is mainly, a morality thing. Human Rights groups say that it's inhumane. But it's no less humane that using napalm, thermobaric rockets, 500lb JDAMs, or even a rifle. In the end, you're still killing. That's it. Now, some people might look at what I just said, and say, "well if that's the case, then you may as well allow WMDs(nukes/bio/chem)." But, the way I see it, WMDs aren't even that practical. The civilian death toll would be insanely high. And with the innovation of precision guided munitions, there really is no need. They are basically "political weapons". The only practical use of a nuclear warhead, that I can really think of(and still keep the civilian death toll to a minimum), would be if it was used against a large naval carrier group, and you wanted to get rid of it, quickly. But even then, there would probably be alot of political fallout(no pun intended).

What kinds of rules make sense in war? I think a better question would be, "are there any rules?". And the answer to that is, yes. But, no one follows all of them. In the eyes of the politicians, these rules are perfect, and completely rational, because they are the ones who have to deal with the general public. But the reality is much different. Rules in war are practically meant to be broken, they always are. There is no "set way" to fight a war, particularly when your adversary is one who will use these "rules" against you(i.e. - insurgents). So, to counter this, you have to bend those rules. Because you have to fight back.

But hey, I'm just a civvie on the internet.... I could be wrong.

I also have to admit this was well said. The question I have is when do abiding by rules inhibit your ability to act. The united states is often chided for its use of certain weaponry or conventions. We're looked on poorly for torture and secret prisons. We're looked down on for using non-precision weaponry. We're looked on poorly for using drones on the borders of other countries. We're even looked down on for using combat as a means of repelling trouble.

While some of these rules are essential to follow in order to promote world opinion, when do they restrict our ability to act? It seems so necessary to find a balance between serving american interest and abiding by world opinion. Personally I think we need more black projects and special forces operations. I personally believe the U.S. should find ways of masking its operations and accomplishing the necessary goals in order to avoid some of these rules.

[ghost]

I also have to admit this was well said. The question I have is when do abiding by rules inhibit your ability to act. The united states is often chided for its use of certain weaponry or conventions. We're looked on poorly for torture and secret prisons. We're looked down on for using non-precision weaponry. We're looked on poorly for using drones on the borders of other countries. We're even looked down on for using combat as a means of repelling trouble.


Of course we are, we're the United States. The most criticized country in the world. Ironically enough, Russia didn't use any precision munitions, during their little scrap in South Ossetia, and Georgia, and there were hundreds of civilian casualties(maybe thousands) during the one week of conflict. And I didn't see anyone complaining about that.....



While some of these rules are essential to follow in order to promote world opinion, when do they restrict our ability to act? It seems so necessary to find a balance between serving american interest and abiding by world opinion. Personally I think we need more black projects and special forces operations. I personally believe the U.S. should find ways of masking its operations and accomplishing the necessary goals in order to avoid some of these rules.


While I agree with what you're saying, I don't think it's always possible to find that balance. When do the rules restrict our ability to act? They almost always do, in the current conflict. The enemy that we are fighting uses these rules against us. The problem may not entirely be due to the fact that the rules exist, but merely that the enemy knows what the rules are, but at the same time, doesn't have any of it's own. They send out children and women to plant IEDs, direct insurgent attacks on convoys, and even locate positions of US/Coalition troops. There are numerous examples. I think the reason that they do this is because they know that the media will react negatively, when US/Coalition troops retaliate, because they can make it look like they are opening fire on civilians who have nothing to do with the conflict. In order to counter this, I believe there needs to be less micromanagement by the officers, and more flexibility and responsibility given to the NCOs. They need to be able to act when something happens, and not have to worry about the politics.

As far as black projects/operations go, there are probably a lot of those going on already. There are only so many covert operations that you can conduct, since you have to take a lot of things into consideration. Perhaps we already have guys on the ground in Darfur(unlikely, but you never know), the Phillipines(Abu Sayaf), and reconnaissance ops in Syria...

[Cruelbreed]

Of course we are, we're the United States. The most criticized country in the world. Ironically enough, Russia didn't use any precision munitions, during their little scrap in South Ossetia, and Georgia, and there were hundreds of civilian casualties(maybe thousands) during the one week of conflict. And I didn't see anyone complaining about that.....





While I agree with what you're saying, I don't think it's always possible to find that balance. When do the rules restrict our ability to act? They almost always do, in the current conflict. The enemy that we are fighting uses these rules against us. The problem may not entirely be due to the fact that the rules exist, but merely that the enemy knows what the rules are, but at the same time, doesn't have any of it's own. They send out children and women to plant IEDs, direct insurgent attacks on convoys, and even locate positions of US/Coalition troops. There are numerous examples. I think the reason that they do this is because they know that the media will react negatively, when US/Coalition troops retaliate, because they can make it look like they are opening fire on civilians who have nothing to do with the conflict. In order to counter this, I believe there needs to be less micromanagement by the officers, and more flexibility and responsibility given to the NCOs. They need to be able to act when something happens, and not have to worry about the politics.

As far as black projects/operations go, there are probably a lot of those going on already. There are only so many covert operations that you can conduct, since you have to take a lot of things into consideration. Perhaps we already have guys on the ground in Darfur(unlikely, but you never know), the Phillipines(Abu Sayaf), and reconnaissance ops in Syria...

Great points, was a fun read. Just to supplement your thoughts on how the enemy knows the rules and uses them against us. There's reports now of Hamas using human shields. We also know of the countless reports of terrorist groups in Iraq who hide munitions in homes of families with children. Of coures when the innocents die, it's the United States that will usually get most of the blame.

[ghost]

Great points, was a fun read. Just to supplement your thoughts on how the enemy knows the rules and uses them against us. There's reports now of Hamas using human shields. We also know of the countless reports of terrorist groups in Iraq who hide munitions in homes of families with children. Of coures when the innocents die, it's the United States that will usually get most of the blame.


That's how it works...